Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vincent Avenue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate who should pay to pave Vincent Avenue as split jurisdiction complicates options
Summary
Vincent Avenue straddles the Charlotte–Lee county line and remains a privately owned road with public access; commissioners discussed MSBU/MSTU options, boundary fixes, safety concerns at the Burnt Store intersection and possible interlocal cost‑shares, but no action was taken.
Vincent Avenue — a road centered on the county line between Charlotte and Lee counties — emerged as one of the meeting’s most contested items as residents, staff and elected officials squared off over responsibility for paving, maintenance and public safety.
Multiple residents and community representatives urged immediate repairs and faster timelines. Robert Hansick (Bernstor Lakes vice president) told the boards Charlotte County could consider owning and paving the road, subject to closing certain gates, while speakers from the Burnt Store area described traffic, safety and access concerns.
Lee County DOT’s Rob Price reviewed legal and administrative constraints: Vincent Avenue is a "private street, with public rights" under the plat and is not currently accepted into Lee County’s maintenance inventory. Price cited Lee County administrative code 11‑7 and said Lee’s standard test for acceptance asks whether a road adds regional significance to the network; "in this case it is not," he said, and therefore his recommendation would be against accepting maintenance absent board direction.
Charlotte County’s John Elias and Lee staff reviewed options: (1) continuing current MSBU collection and scheduled paving (Charlotte said the MSBU timeline requires action this year), (2) reaching a voluntary cost share with Burnt Store Marina residents as was done previously, (3) forming a municipal service taxing unit (MSTU) or involuntary MSTU, or (4) exploring a boundary fix through state legislative action to move the county line. Elias reported the current Lee County share for a cost‑share paving option at about $386,423.
County attorneys outlined legal paths and limits. Lee County attorney Richard West said the county could create a taxing unit and impose it on residents but noted the county’s typical practice is to seek voluntary units supported by a 50%+1 threshold; he said an involuntary unit would be legally possible but politically and legally sensitive.
Commissioners debated interim technical fixes (temporary signalization versus enforcement), timing and fairness to residents who currently fund MSBUs but still rely on cross‑county access. Several commissioners urged staff to pursue outreach to determine whether property owners would voluntarily support an MSTU or other taxing vehicle; Lee staff indicated the county could send an MSTU coordinator to engage property owners.
No formal transfer of road ownership or funding decision was made. Commissioners and staff described follow‑up steps including (a) targeted outreach on MSTU formation and (b) further legal analysis of acceptance options or potential boundary adjustments.
